There is a belief amongst Internationalists that Nation States are nothing more than reservoirs of racism that elevate their own ethnicity above all others. The truth is very different, Nations are organised groups of people who operate an economy and social system based on a particular area of land. They have cultures and economies that are usually dynamically adapting to local conditions and to the relationship between the locality and the world at large. Nations are the diverse socio-economic organisations that are essential for the flowering of humanity. Without Nations most differences will disappear. Independent Nations are a "good thing": they saved the world from the ideology of fascism in the 20th century. It is ideologies that are evil, especially empire building, Internationalist ideologies like fascism or communism. Most of the Nations of the world cooperate with each other. They trade, they allow people to move freely between countries for tourism and business and have devised treaties to lower the chance of conflict.
This is the visible truth about Nations so why do so many people want to see them abolished? Over the past two centuries there have been two forces that desire the rebirth of Empire. These are Internationalist socialists, who believe that the world can be controlled according to a set of rules imposed from above, and the multinational corporations who believe that a single global empire will allow them to cement their dominance.
Why do ordinary people support Internationalism? As the EU Referendum demonstrated, it is those who imagine personal gain from Internationalism who support it in large numbers . The supporters of Internationalism are mostly the wealthy and students and academics who are largely interested in personal gain, being almost entirely detached from their fellow citizens. As always, it is these upper classes who create Empires. They see free movement of themselves and their money (migration) as essential to the well-being of themselves and their families. These people are happy to create a global government that, within a few decades, would be corrupt, decay and oppress humanity for centuries, because they imagine it will benefit their careers and family now.
Who are the active Internationalists, the people implementing the Internationalist agenda? Obviously multinational corporations espouse the "holy trinity" of free movement of capital, goods and people because they perceive that it benefits them but there is also another group of Internationalists who are as dangerous. This second group are the administrators of the post World War II international order. After WWII the Western Allies did not simply occupy their conquests as a "Western Empire", they set up an international order to foster peace and global cooperation. After the Second World War the Anglo-American victors deliberately avoided setting up an empire. Three generations later the inheritors of this system have forgotten that the international order was set up to avoid a Western Empire as well as to provide security. They are foolishly using the power that they were given to press ahead with the very mistake that they were supposed to avoid. The post-war settlement was supposed to produce peacefully competing independent nations that were capable of cooperation, not an Empire.
The Internationalists operate by first removing economic sovereignty with free movement of capital, trade and people. Once this has gone they can say "what is sovereignty anyway?". Of these three factors, only Free Trade can occur without huge loss of sovereignty.
In the past year the Internationalists have been dealt some massive blows, they are on the run. It is now time to dismantle or reduce the power of their organisations.
The first strike must be against the Internationalist command and control structures. These structures are both formal (see graphic above) and informal.
The formal command structures need changes in their senior management. Fanatical Internationalists like Christine Lagarde at the IMF need to be removed and replaced with people who recall that organisations, such as the IMF, are not about creating a Western Empire. The WTO (GATT) needs to be restructured to lessen lobbying by banks who are selfishly attempting to obtain total free movement of capital. Further expansion by the EU needs to be condemned as empire building rather than praised as bringing nations under the aegis of the Western Empire. The UN should be encouraged to dismiss its Special Representative for Migration, Peter Sutherland, who is one of those ex-Goldman Sachs employees who are working to make the world a utopia for corporations (See EU should undermine national homogeneity). The corruption at the World Bank needs to be publicised and its funds diminished, its day is almost done.
The informal command structures are harder to attack.
Perhaps the worst of the informal structures is "Davos". Multinationals and seedy politicians meet annually at Davos in Switzerland to plot against the People of the world. They dress up their intentions in talk of relieving global poverty and creating peace but these are Multinational Employees talking, their main objective is to increase their own bottom line by manipulating and dis-empowering governments. Peace and the distribution of wealth are, and will always be, the responsibilities of governments, not Multinational Corporations and Banks. Davos opens up possibilities for corruption that could only have been dreamt of 50 years ago. Governments should stop sending representatives to Davos and ban those businessmen who attend from holding Directorships.
Internationalism has spread deeply into our schools as a response to recent mass migrations. Those who set the school history curriculum should be inspected for internationalism and re-educated or replaced with those who prefer to stress that the Napoleonic Wars, WWII, the Cold War were about expansionist ideologies and empires and that sensible, pragmatic Nations saved the world.
There is another informal gathering, set up by the European Movement and CIA to foster the EU, that needs particular attention. This is the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is simply a bad idea for you and me. No holder of public office should be allowed to attend Bilderberg Meetings. It is absurd that a group such as Bilderberg even exists - just look at the attendees at one of their recent, secret meetings:
As Trump says, the time has come to drain the swamp.
The Holy Trinity: Free movement of Capital, Trade and Labour
Does free trade make us all richer? The answer is simple: only if we receive the benefits. If the profits from free trade are invested elsewhere they do not make us richer, in fact they may produce low cost competition that will threaten our jobs. Trade deals are an excellent idea but simply having a mantra that free trade, foreign trade without any regulation or oversight, is "good" is simple minded. Unregulated free trade may indeed make some corporations and some countries richer but there is no guarantee at all that it will make you and me richer. Trade deals can be good but totally Free Trade is usually an Internationalist attack, placing ideology above our interests.
Does the free movement of labour make us all richer? It is racist to assume that once foreign workers have become part of the population they and their children will always be better workers than the general population. Every foreign worker simply consumes their own production, they might make themselves richer but they do not make us all richer. In an overpopulated country such as the UK simply swelling the population makes us all poorer because we have less space. Inviting foreign workers on work permits and allowing highly productive workers to settle may be justifiable but simply allowing mass migration is a very bad idea. The large-scale, unregulated movement of labour may be good for some corporations but it is seldom ever good for you and me.
Does free movement of capital make us all richer? Free movement of capital allows large amounts of foreign investment but it also allows the large scale transfer of profits overseas and large scale disinvestment. The combination of the free movement of capital and Free Trade agreements means that foreign investors can use their normal, foreign suppliers to produce parts and to supply materials so causing a loss of jobs and production in their host nations. Free movement of capital means that if the whole "holy trinity" of free movement of goods, labour and money is enacted foreign companies can use a country as no more than an operating site, using foreign staff, materials and stock to mount an attack on their host market and population. The Nation is slowly converted into a region of a Single Market once the whole "holy trinity" is enacted. The unregulated movement of capital may be good for some corporations and some countries but it is not good for you and me.
So why would anyone other than Multinational Corporations support Internationalism? Some ideologists would maintain that it spreads wealth around the globe and so "makes us all richer". Many of our elected representatives have got caught up in this idea and would happily close industrial plants in South Wales if it benefits unemployed workers elsewhere in Europe. Don't vote for these people. They are your representatives, not the representatives of people elsewhere. It is not right for wealthy idealists to make the poor in their own country pay the price of relieving poverty elsewhere when there are other ways to help the poor in other places.
The error committed by the ideological Internationalists is threefold, firstly, Internationalism is simply wrong when it is clear that Nation States are essential for the diversity and optimal stability of the world, secondly the "holy trinity" benefits multinational corporations and not you and me and thirdly Internationalism penalises the poor in the West. The alliance of the Internationalist "left" and corporations is extremely dangerous for us all.
Perhaps the biggest problem is the "left". The "left" are ideologues who believe utterly that they have the right answers. The "left" is the opposite of diversity. The reason that diversity brings an optimal stability to a system is that it contains many possible answers and allows the correct answer to be enacted as the world changes. Anyone who travelled through Eastern Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain will have seen with their own eyes the monotonous cultural and economic poverty that is caused by having only one answer. A diversity of cooperating Nation States is the way forward, not ideology. The Left have done a remarkable job blaming Nation States for the wars that the Left have caused but we all know that it is the ideology of Empire building that causes war, whether that ideology is the National Socialism of Italy and Germany, Communism or old fashioned Imperialism.
More about Nationalism versus Internationalism
We are biological, humanity is part of the global ecosystem and diversity is essential for the optimal functioning of an ecosystem in which Nations have a role like any other group of organisms. An ecosystem needs several groups of organisms at each level to thrive because each group contains different answers to the problem of change. What has happened in the West is that a group of secular fanatics has risen to power who believe that there is only one answer to change: their answer. They believe in "human rights" and "the Single Market" as being self evidently holy in the same way as previous generations believed in God and Church and show as little insight into their extremism.
Comments